Subject: bug#67391: dejagnu report card and multiple rows

From: Jacob Bachmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 20:41:40 -0600

Tom Tromey wrote:
> I tried "dejagnu report card" today for gdb (well, the subset of gdb
> tests that I most recently ran).  It shows:
>
> prentzel. dejagnu report card gdb.sum
>       __________________________________________________
>      /    PASS   FAIL  ?PASS  ?FAIL  UNSUP  UNRES UNTEST
>      |--------------------------------------------------
> gdb  |    8599      0      0     37      0      0      0
>      |--------------------------------------------------
>      |    8599      0      0     37      0      0      0
>      \__________________________________________________
>
>
> I couldn't figure out why there would be two rows here.
> The documentation doesn't describe it either.
>
> Is the second row the sum?

Correct.  If multiple passes were tested there is an additional group of 
per-pass total lines before the grand total at the end.  The grand total 
is always produced and was expected to be self-documenting, as 
recognizing it as the sum of the tool lines was expected to be obvious.  
It turns out to be a bit less obvious when there is only one tool...

>   If so (1) if there's a single tool, maybe it
> can be omitted; and (2) perhaps this could be mentioned in the
> documentation, maybe with some example output.
>   

There are examples in the dejagnu-report-card(1) manpage.  The "dejagnu 
help report card" command should display it.  I seem to recall omitting 
them from the Texinfo manual for reasons of style, but manpages 
traditionally have an EXAMPLES section, so there they are.

Given that the pass totals are already omitted if not relevant, omitting 
the grand totals if only one row was emitted is a future possibility.

The original use case for "dejagnu report card" was to collect results 
from testing multiple tools in a convenient summary display.  If you are 
only testing one tool, DejaGnu itself produces a similar summary, 
although not quite as compact.

In any case, a documentation patch has been pushed on the PR67391 
branch.  Does it resolve the confusion?

-- Jacob